Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Atheism and agnosticism tell me nothing about the religious beliefs of a person other than the fact that the person does not believe in deities or is uncertain about the existence of deities. In that respect, do you identify yourself as religious atheist/agnostic or irreligious atheist/agnostic?

I identify as none of the above at all. I identify as someone who does not believe, use or subscribe to a proposition that is offered to me without any substantiation. Simple as that.

Now GIVEN that the idea there is a god is one that comes before us with no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support it.... I therefore do not subscribe to, use or believe that proposition.

So "atheism" as some people call it is a consequence of my world view, it is not in and of itself my world view. My world view is, as I said, not to believe that which I am given no reason to believe. Simples.

And this is not a world view I found my way into. I appear to have always been that way. I can recall no point in my life where I ever did think there was a god or a santa claus. From the youngest age my brain seems to have naturally by itself taken on the stance that no matter what someone said, if they offered no reason for me to believe what they said.... then I simply did not believe it.

So no, all these terms like atheist and agnostic and even adeist have nothing in them I really identify with and I never use them to describe myself. Its a word other people use to describe me, and they are more than welcome to their labels.

You complain that the words tell you nothing about the person. This should at least come as no surprise to you if you dwell on it. Labeling a person by what they are not, rather than what they are (a privilege of the majority it seems) is by definition rarely going to tell you anything about them. I am, for example, aracist. This has likely told you very little about who or what I actually am however.

base everything, EVERYTHING, off of a "truth" first. Understanding that we don't know everything. list 10 primary axioms a person has. Then categorize, loosely that is, if they constitute an emotional need or logical solution. That list is a seriously good predictor on how a person views/reacts to things and events round them.

For example the god thing. The observations show that "something" is far more likely than "no-nothing". And that "Omni-dude" is less likely than "no-notin". That's what the data shows. Then we can make our emotional and logical needs make sense of that. Maybe a little honesty would be good too.

The reason I have little intellectual respect for philosophers is that they don't understand the concept of "observations drives the wording". I have great respect for their writing skills when someone tells them what the observations could mean. They are very pretty writers. Some are even so cute they need hugs.

Whether they know it or not, those who do not believe in a god are atheist. Whether they know it or not, those atheists who say 'there is no God' are talking agnostic -based disbelief. For anyone to get annoyed by atheists who claim to 'know' there is no god is to get annoyed about nothing, assuming they are not simply annoyed about the god -disbelief.

In my mind, a more-clearly-phrased way of saying what you said in the boldfaced quote of yours appearing above (i.e, that "Whether they know it or not, those atheists who say 'there is no God' are talking agnostic-based disbelief") would be something like the following:

No one is an absolute atheist. Even those who say that they are, are in fact actually saying or conveying the following:

"I have no knowledge whatsoever about the existence of anything which resembles the described characteristics of what you folks call a 'god' or 'gods'. I am open to evidence (true evidence) which demonstrates the reality of what you folks call a 'god' or 'gods' . . . though I am extremely highly doubtful that you can do so and give it near-zero probability. But if you say or think that you can, in fact, provide such evidence (what I deem to be real or true evidence), then DO SO. I am open to evidence but am not open to simply embracing belief for the sake of mere belief."

Such a stance, which is the same stance that Richard Dawkins takes, is called being an "agnostic atheist".

That is the logical position of atheism per se and in fact of all atheists, whether they know it or not. An 'absolute atheist' is at best a misunderstanding of atheism - often by atheists themselves - and at worst a misrepresentation by theists in order to make atheism look untenable.

The same applies to theists. They also do not know whether there is a god or not. They are also agnostic, whether they realize it or not. But in fact a whole lot more of them do claim to "know". That is just one reason why Theism is irrational.

The same applies to theists. They also do not know whether there is a god or not. They are also agnostic, whether they realize it or not. But in fact a whole lot more of them do claim to "know". That is just one reason why Theism is irrational.

Now, now Arq . . . you ignore or deny the existence of personal knowledge that is not subject to scientific verification . . . and then call reliance on said experience irrational! Some of us have information not available to you that makes our certainty rational, Arq. Get over it.

That is the logical position of atheism per se and in fact of all atheists, whether they know it or not. An 'absolute atheist' is at best a misunderstanding of atheism - often by atheists themselves - and at worst a misrepresentation by theists in order to make atheism look untenable.

The same applies to theists. They also do not know whether there is a god or not. They are also agnostic, whether they realize it or not. But in fact a whole lot more of them do claim to "know". That is just one reason why Theism is irrational.

That is the logical position of atheism per se and in fact of all atheists, whether they know it or not. An 'absolute atheist' is at best a misunderstanding of atheism - often by atheists themselves - and at worst a misrepresentation by theists in order to make atheism look untenable.

The same applies to theists. They also do not know whether there is a god or not. They are also agnostic, whether they realize it or not. But in fact a whole lot more of them do claim to "know". That is just one reason why Theism is irrational.

Said theists have little (if any) grasp of what constitutes "knowledge" or "knowing" versus a simple willingness to wrap "belief" around whatever concept or idea and embrace it as "true" even though you truly have no epistemological basis for saying that such concept or idea is "true" in an evidentiary sense. They don't seem to understand the premise of what constitutes "evidence" from "pseudo-evidence" or "non-evidence". They really, really, really need to take a curriculum or at least a series of courses in logic and in epistemology in a Philosophy Dept. of a good university or college to strengthen their thinking and reasoning skills. I have (though that wasn't my major, but I've taken courses in a Philosophy Dept. in "History of Western Philosophy", "Logic", "Philosophy of Science", and "Intellectual Heritage I" and "Intellectual Heritage II") and was exposed to enough critical thinking in the rest of my university-level degree pursuit and in my many readings over the decades.

Wrong. the rationalist position -scientifically validated evidence and logically sound reasoning - is the default or the preferred position for considering all claims. In respect of the god claims (or the mystical or spiritual) atheism is based on the rationalist position and is therefore rational. The god claim or related claims is not and is therefore irrational. Try again.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.